WWI: What if the U.S. stayed neutral?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


IIUC the formal alliance terminated with the treaty that ended the Amer Rev in1783. In fact we fought an undeclared war with France in 1798 or so. We did not ally with France again till 1917 - i dont know the formal structure of that alliance. We never even established a formal, treaty bound alliance with UK in WW2, we were informal allies, and as of the end of World War Two we were no longer in alliance with any European power until the formation of NATO/Atlantic Alliance in 1948. Again, that bound treaty members only to come to each others aid in the event of attacks in Europe or North America - it did NOT apply to Indochina.

The Atlantic Charter was signed in August 1941. It did not assure American entry, but it did ensure the continued operation of 'the arsenal.'

It also pushed the Japanese to remove any question of American military involvement.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


"The Royal Navy seizes the newly constructed Turkish battleships Sultan Osman I and Reshadieh in the Tyne "

http://cnparm.home.texas.net/Wars/JulyCrisis/JulyCrisis05.htm

Why, of course Churchill was trying to calm things down and further the peace movement, just as he did in 1939-40 when he rejected German peace offers. Churchill was a man of peace.

1939? Are you drunk?

[Ned]

Originally posted by One_more_turn
France was allied with the Russia, and Russia with Serbia.

On the other hand, Germany was allied with Austria; and if Austria invaded Serbia, France and Russia would be at war.

Britain was only allied with Belgium. Had Germany not invaded it, Britain would not have been at war. If Britain hadn't go to war, US would have stayed out as well. So with 20/20 hindsight, the German invasion of Belgium was a total strategic folly, the result of being enslaved by the Schlieffenplan.

True, but it seems there was a moment where peace almost broke out. The Kaiser has called off the invasion of Belgium and France and was still working to get Russia to stand down.

Now if Russia stopped mobilizing perhaps Serbia would have come to terms with Austria.

But there were pro-war passions in Russia that would not stop, and the rest is history.

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither


1939? Are you drunk?

He was in the government that turned down the October peace offer. I am sure he was a leading advocate of not negotiating with Germany.

[notyoueither]

Oh. You're sure. That's a perfectly acceptable source. Nevermind, carry on.

[Ned]

NYE, well, since you resort to insults and a so sure of youself, you *****, I'll look it up.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned


He was in the government that turned down the October peace offer. I am sure he was a leading advocate of not negotiating with Germany.

and why is that a bad thing

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned
NYE, well, since you resort to insults and a so sure of youself, you *****, I'll look it up.

That was insulting?

Please do look it up. I'll look forward to some support for your pathological anti-British blatherings.

That was an insult, btw.

[Ned]

Apparently, the files on these dicussions are still sealed. But, given that Churchill argued for the war's continuance after the fall of France, I think you know his position in 1939 after the fall of Poland.

"Unburdened by ideological idealism, the Duke of Windsor suspected in July 1940 that the war was continuing solely in order to allow certain British statesmen (he meant Mr. Churchill and his friends) to save face, even if it meant dragging their country and Empire into financial ruin. Others pragmatically argued that there could be no compromise with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. But did Britain's leaders in fact believe this? Dr. Bernd Martin of Freiburg University has revealed the extent to which secret negotiations on peace continued between Britain and Germany in October 1939 and long after-negotiations on which, curiously, Mr. Churchill's files have officially been sealed until the twenty-first century, and the Cabinet records blanked out. Similar negotiations were carried on in June 1940, when even Mr. Churchill showed himself momentarily willing in Cabinet meetings to deal with Hitler if the price was right."

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p389_Irving.html

Pathological?

No, we have been fed very skillful Brit propaganda for a very long time.

You will note, I also question a lot of what the US did in going to war in both 1917 and 1941.

[notyoueither]

You're right. Wanting to combat Nazis on your doorstep is simply unforgivable. Whatever were they thinking?

Now, where is the source that it was Churchill alone who kept Britain in the fight before even Belguim was overwhelmed.

In short, WTF would they have quit prior to June '40?

[notyoueither]

And yes, pathological.

You propose the British should have tolerated a situation akin to Castro taking over one country after another in Central and South America while the US would have been being bad boys to object.

Simply ****ing pathological.

[Saras]

Ned, holocaust-denial site as a source? :lame:

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by notyoueither


The Atlantic Charter was signed in August 1941. It did not assure American entry, but it did ensure the continued operation of 'the arsenal.'

It also pushed the Japanese to remove any question of American military involvement.

But the Atlantic charter was a statement of principles, not an alliance.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
Similar negotiations were carried on in June 1940, when even Mr. Churchill showed himself momentarily willing in Cabinet meetings to deal with Hitler if the price was right.

Ned, for an accurate and interesting history of the discussion re Axis offers to negotiate in May 1940, I suggest Luckacs "Seven Days in May"

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You're right. Wanting to combat Nazis on your doorstep is simply unforgivable. Whatever were they thinking?

Now, where is the source that it was Churchill alone who kept Britain in the fight before even Belguim was overwhelmed.

In short, WTF would they have quit prior to June '40?

What are you talking about? I specifically refer to the German peace offers and nothing else. The question presented to the Brits was whether they would negotiate rather than fight. In '39, Hitler had offered to give up Poland and Czechoslovakia provided there be an internationally conducted referedum by the people living in the Corridor as to whether they wanted to be Germans or Poles. The Brits chose to fight, but only after a long week's silence. The issue must have been close in the cabinet.

Now given that it was Churchill who was advocating strong measures before and after, I am sure he was among those who argued to reject the German initiative(s).